The underlying dispute pits P2B Trading Co., a New Jersey consumer electronics company, against Google over the "GEMINI" mark. P2B alleges that forthcoming Google consumer electronics — including the Google Home Speaker — equipped with Google's "Gemini" AI technology infringe on P2B's senior rights in its "GEMINI" mark. P2B's complaint asserts two counts of federal trademark infringement, one count of federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), one count of common law trademark infringement, and one count seeking cancellation of Google's registered "GEMINI" trademark in connection with smartphones.
The court had already denied P2B's requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction before turning to Google's venue motion.
Applying the nine-factor § 1404(a) framework, the court held that the balance weighed against transfer. Party convenience, relative means, and plaintiff's choice of forum all cut against Google. P2B argued that Florida is arguably its largest market, that several of its principals reside in or spend substantial time in Florida, and that Google's resources vastly exceed its own. The court agreed with P2B, noting that Google is a large company with adequate resources to defend a lawsuit in this district and that P2B would shoulder a larger proportionate burden if the case moved to California.
The witness-convenience factor tilted somewhat toward Google because the employees who developed the Gemini AI products are principally based in the Northern District of California, but the court gave that factor reduced weight because Google identified no witnesses outside its own control and can compel its employees to appear at trial. The locus-of-operative-facts factor favored Google, since the court acknowledged that in intellectual property infringement cases the locus is typically where the allegedly infringing product was designed, developed, and produced — and Google contended that the relevant teams were primarily based in the Northern District of California.
Trial efficiency cut the other way. P2B submitted court statistics showing a median time to trial of 25.5 months in the Middle District of Florida versus 38.9 months in the Northern District of California, and the court held that those figures militated against transfer. The interests of justice were treated as neutral because both districts have equal interests in enforcing trademark and unfair competition laws. Document-location and governing-law factors were also treated as neutral.
The court also rejected Google's argument that P2B's counsel had effectively conceded the point by stating at a February 3, 2026 status conference that the case could be brought anywhere in the United States. The court held that the fact that the case could have been brought in the Northern District of California does not mean it must be sent there. Google's motion to transfer was denied, and a case management and scheduling order is to follow.